Interview With a Biochemist

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Thanks for evading the crux of my point. But hey, what did i really expect?! That's your normal modus operandi.

As for Dawkins, are you suggesting he's not one of the greatest science writers of our generation? And you know this because you've his science literatutre? Or are you just talking out of your bottom as per normal?

i am only reiterating what i have read from others, notably Conrau on this site who stated that even as an atheist he would not quote him as a reputable source. i have evaded nothing, Behe presented his case in the books that he has written, if that is not peer reviewed enough for you i don't know what is, plus, if you notice in the interview which i posted and i quote,

'If you search the scientific literature, you will discover that nobody has made a serious attempt—an experimental attempt or detailed scientific model—that explains how such molecular machines arose by Darwinian processes. This is despite the fact that in the ten years since my book was published, many scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have issued urgent appeals to their membership to do everything they can to fend off the idea that life provides evidence of intelligent design'.

If such is the case, who indeed was Behe going to send his findings to? Why indeed were they so opposed to his research and conclusions? why did he end up in court over it, if his ideas are so unsound, why the necessity of taking him to court, surely the scientific community would have recourse to reason and data instead, but, noooo, they did not like the idea that the very tenets that they had founded their materialism upon was being used to substantiate belief in a God!

i need to go to work, 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
like Dawkins, muhaha, even some evolutionists have termed him a hack! Sooner he gets a Bible study the better! indeed if you know how to contact him i would even study with him myself! As for Behe, he lives despite the fact that he was taken to court for his views. You see deer Noobster intelligent design in an inference, it cannot be refuted for ...[text shortened]... out, is that it portends to the supernatural which many find objectionable and on what grounds?

As for Behe, he lives despite the fact that he was taken to court for his views.

No he wasn't taken to court for his views Rob, stop making things up. He was called as a witness in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, that's something completely different. Behe, the poster boy of the creationist movement, was called to give evidence supporting the ID movement and was made to look a bit of a turnip. I like Judge Jones' summing up, (who incidentally was a George Bush appointed, devoted church going conservative republican)

It is our view that a reasonable, objective oberserver would, after both reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but it is not science.........In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instructions elsewhere.

also

Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition

Bish, bash and boshed!!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am only reiterating what i have read from others, notably Conrau on this site who stated that even as an atheist he would not quote him as a reputable source.

But, dude, you've only just told FabianFnas off for reiterating something that he had read somewhere else, and now suddenly your saying you yourself CAN reiterate what you have read somewhere else? Jeez.

Originally posted by John W Booth
But, dude, you've only just told FabianFnas off for reiterating something that he had read somewhere else, and now suddenly your saying you yourself CAN reiterate what you have read somewhere else? Jeez.

Welcome to the world of Robbie Carrobie!!!!

He is famous (within the confines of this forum)for being 'consistently inconsistent'. The term 'disingenuous' has been stuck to his door on more than one occasion, by more than one person.

you see Fabian when one starts to assume a certain position without having recourse to any type of knowledge, and then proceeds to base an argument upon it, its like a castle made of sand, and it will fall into the sea, eventually.

and

i am only reiterating what i have read from others,

I think he's just rather embarrasingly refuted his own argument in the space 3 hrs!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am only reiterating what i have read from others, notably Conrau on this site who stated that even as an atheist he would not quote him as a reputable source. i have evaded nothing, Behe presented his case in the books that he has written, if that is not peer reviewed enough for you i don't know what is, plus, if you notice in the interview which materialism upon was being used to substantiate belief in a God!

i need to go to work, 🙂

Here's a suggestion, why don't you practice what you preach that way you won't like like such a turnip?!

you see Fabian when one starts to assume a certain position without having recourse to any type of knowledge, and then proceeds to base an argument upon it, its like a castle made of sand, and it will fall into the sea, eventually.

I doubt very much Conrau was talking about Dawkins science writing, i imagine he was talking about The God Delusion and Dawkins musings on religion in general. Here's a list of Dawkins awards for his science writings for you to peruse over -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Awards_and_recognition

May i suggest reading one or two of his books to gain a little knowledge, otherwise your arguments will be like a castle made of sand, and it will fall into the sea, eventually. (incidentally i've seen the actual castles made of sand Hendrix was refering to)

if that is not peer reviewed enough for you i don't know what is.

That's called publishing a book, i can make up any old tosh (Forbiden Archaeology springs to mind) and publish it. Peer review is different in that you detail your abstract, method, experiment, conclusions etc in a paper which is then published in a scientific journal. Your paper is then sent to scientists who are well versed in the specific field of science that the paper is on, and they look over the papers findings and deem whether it's accurate or not. That's how peer review process works, your work is reviewed by your peers. Hence the title.

Incidentally, what has been published by Behe has been panned by other scientists.

why did he end up in court over it, if his ideas are so unsound, why the necessity of taking him to court,

He wasn't taken to court for his views, he was called as the star witness for the defence in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District trial.

Read all you want about it here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

He was called by the defence to show that ID was legitimate science and ended up looking like a turnip -

"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"

Robbie might also try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity which clearly evidences the development of so called 'irreducibly complex' structures (like the eye) via processes of natural selection and the like.

Having just finished Dawkins book on evolution 'The Greatest Show on Earth', he also points out on pg 356 onwards that "This major pattern of design flaws, compensated for by subsequent tinkering (evolutionary processes) is exactly what we should not expect if there were a designer at work. We might expect unfortunate mistakes, as in the spherical aberration of the Hubble mirror, but we do not expect obvious stupidity, as in the retina being installed back the front. Blunders of this kind come not from poor design but from history'.

He also notes the recurrent laryngeal nerve as another obvious 'un-intelligent' design, which would not be expected if we were actually created by an all powerful being i.e. why would he/she screw up so badly?

Robbie, please read this book with an open mind and lose the religious delusions. Might I request you follow up this book with 'The God Delusion' and you really will realize you are wasting your life on meaningless drivel. There is OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution if you choose to locate it, or you can choose to remain sheltered in your warm and cozy JW beliefs.

Originally posted by John W Booth
But, dude, you've only just told FabianFnas off for reiterating something that he had read somewhere else, and now suddenly your saying you yourself CAN reiterate what you have read somewhere else? Jeez.

no i have done nothing of the sort, i chastised Fabian for basing his argument on pure assumption, not for reiterating what a third party had written, please retract your statement and do not make a habit of misrepresentation.

Originally posted by obsesschess
Robbie might also try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity which clearly evidences the development of so called 'irreducibly complex' structures (like the eye) via processes of natural selection and the like.

Having just finished Dawkins book on evolution 'The Greatest Show on Earth', he also points out on pg 356 onwards that "T to locate it, or you can choose to remain sheltered in your warm and cozy JW beliefs.

strange that a professor of biochemistry should write the following,

'If you search the scientific literature, you will discover that nobody has made a serious attempt—an experimental attempt or detailed scientific model—that explains how such molecular machines arose by Darwinian processes',

you think he might have considered the eye, don't you think, maybe even heard of it. Irreducible complexity and intelligent design are points of view based on inferences from an observation of the natural world, you cannot refute them, all you can state with any certainty is, to me the evidence does not suggest so, Dawkins himself merely expresses an opinion, for what seems to him an incongruity in nature, its nothing more than that!

As for Jehovahs witnesses shall you tell the forum what is cosy and warm about being one, after all a person with such an extensive experience and being one and able to publicly broadcast it must know, or is it as Solzhenitsyn stated, 'Can a man who's warm understand one who's freezing?'

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here's a suggestion, why don't you practice what you preach that way you won't like like such a turnip?!

you see Fabian when one starts to assume a certain position without having recourse to any type of knowledge, and then proceeds to base an argument upon it, its like a castle made of sand, and it will fall into the sea, eventually.

I doub d rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"[/i]

i would rather read reams of the chess informator in machine code and binary than one of Dawkins books, hes a militant Atheist and needs a Bible study, i would acquiesce with reservation, but seeing i am a Christian, one must enter the lions den! Sorry if i have insulted the herald of new Atheism, king of the personality cult, the Gods of reason and logic and the God of Science.

No, robbie, don't get defensive. Just ansewr the questions. Noone is hurting you. If you were unclear then now is the time to put it right again. What do you mean, and why?

The only thing I've done in this thread was to quote Wikipedia about Mr Behe, so we know who we are talking about. Nothing more.

It surprises me that you have so strong feelings against evolution since you haven't read anything about it, and of that reason know very little about it.
I don't know much about the works of Mr Behe of the same reason, I haven't read anything that he has written. I admit that I don't know more than what Wikipedia has about him. I don't claim anything more.

Don't get defencive, robbie, we have a good conversation here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i would rather read reams of the chess informator in machine code and binary than one of Dawkins books, hes a militant Atheist and needs a Bible study, i would acquiesce with reservation, but seeing i am a Christian, one must enter the lions den! Sorry if i have insulted the herald of new Atheism, king of the personality cult, the Gods of reason and logic and the God of Science.

Yet again you've evaded the crux of the matter.

You've insulted no one, i can't even see how you would think that, instead you've made yourself look a bit of a tit, which is hardly new is it?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Yet again you've evaded the crux of the matter.

You've insulted no one, i can't even see how you would think that, instead you've made yourself look a bit of a tit, which is hardly new is it?

mere opinion, oh Socrates have we learned nothing since your departure, all is mere opinion, unsubstantiated and masquerading as truth! a vanity and a striving after the wind. i have done nothing of the sort, i merely quoted a published article and the hordes descended upon it like it was the last mars bar in a chocolate famine.

My points remain, irreducible complexity and intelligent design cannot be refuted, they are perspectives, points of view, you people can invoke the Gods of atheism all you like, offer up incense to Dawkins edifice, i don't care, these truths are self evident, for if i claim that there is evidence of design in living things, what shall you say? It does appear to me that way, well ok, so what? Thus its a simple matter of perspective, this seems to be evading you people at present, why i do not know. Also dear Noobster its a very poor argument which necessitates the use of tabloid style expressions like, tit , turnip, etc etc

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, robbie, don't get defensive. Just ansewr the questions. Noone is hurting you. If you were unclear then now is the time to put it right again. What do you mean, and why?

The only thing I've done in this thread was to quote Wikipedia about Mr Behe, so we know who we are talking about. Nothing more.

It surprises me that you have so strong feelings ...[text shortened]... t claim anything more.

Don't get defencive, robbie, we have a good conversation here.

i am not getting anywhere near defensive yet, i merely copied and pasted a published article, i did not author it, the words in it were not of my originality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mere opinion, oh Socrates have we learned nothing since your departure, all is mere opinion, unsubstantiated and masquerading as truth! a vanity and a striving after the wind. i have done nothing of the sort, i merely quoted a published article and the hordes descended upon it like it was the last mars bar in a chocolate famine.

My points remai ...[text shortened]... imple matter of perspective, this seems to be evading you people at present, why i do not know.

i merely quoted a published article and the hordes descended upon it like it was the last mars bar in a chocolate famine.

The hordes? What sensationalist drivel!! You mean about three people?!

I just find it hilarious that you keep wheeling out Behe as evidence for something, i'm still not really sure what it is, when he fully accepts evolutionary theory, except for his 'guided mutations' twist. That's everything you oppose and here you are championing him like some sort of hero.

His claims have been reufted by the scientific community, his own University puts a disclamier on their website regarding his views, and he refuses to put any of his earth shattering evidence to be peer-reviewed because under cross examiation he admitted it wasn't really science. It's just creationism in another guise.

You then admit your views on Dawkins are nothing more than 'reiterating what i have read from others', here's a suggestion why don't you read some of his books. In fact i dare you to read some of his books, you night actually learn something.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]i merely quoted a published article and the hordes descended upon it like it was the last mars bar in a chocolate famine.

The hordes? What sensationalist drivel!! You mean about three people?!

I just find it hilarious that you keep wheeling out Behe as evidence for something, i'm still not really sure what it is, when he fully accepts evolut oks. In fact i dare you to read some of his books, you night actually learn something.[/b]

no thanks i choose life! 🙂